James Berry: That point is not lost on me or the House.
The first objection is that MPs in constituencies said to have voted remain are obliged to respect the result in their constituency and block article 50. We are told that we should act not as representatives in the sense that Burke constructed but as delegates. There are several problems with that argument. The first is that the referendum was a straightforward exercise in direct democracy applicable to the UK as a whole. The rules  were not for a two-stage electoral college process including a vote in this House. If those had been the rules, the votes would have had to be counted on a constituency basis, which they certainly were not in England—it is likely that my constituency voted to remain, but we will never know. In practice, had those been the rules, it is estimated that the leave campaign would have won by a country mile—by more than 2:1. To get around this inconvenience, a second main argument is advanced: that all those MPs in seats that voted to remain should vote to block article 50 anyway in the national interest. To those arguments, I simply say: you cannot have your cake and eat it.
The third main argument, reflected in one of the amendments—one with which I respectfully disagree—is that the referendum gave no mandate to leave the single market. Whatever else can be said about the leave campaign —and I have a lot to say about the leave campaign—it was certainly clear about taking back control of immigration policy, laws and EU spending, none of which would be possible as a member of the single market. EU leaders said it at the time, leave campaigners said it, remain campaigners absolutely said it, and I know I said it, because staying in the single market was one of the main reasons I voted remain, knowing what a leave vote would entail.
The fourth main argument is that MPs who like me voted to remain have a duty to hold fast with that view and vote to block article 50: we were convinced that the best thing for the country was to remain in the EU last June, so what has changed? I say nothing has changed. I made a careful decision, having considered the arguments on both sides, and decided that it was in the best interests of my constituents, many of whom work in the City of London, and of the country to remain in the EU. I recognise, however, one straightforward fact: my side lost. We in the House are nothing else if not democrats. The democratic process of the referendum, set in train by a vote in this House, has run its course and delivered its result, and in this country, we respect the results of the democratic process.
A good number of my constituents who voted to remain have in the last few days and hours asked me to vote to block article 50. They will be disappointed by my vote on the Bill. I respect their views, I understand their desire to remain a member of the EU and I share their concerns about the uncertainty inherent in the article 50 process, but the consistently high turnouts in my constituency tell me that my constituents care about democracy. The majority of my constituents, and the majority of the people in the UK, would not expect their MP to try to obstruct the result of a democratic process just because that MP was on the side that lost.
I have come to the clear conclusion that the right thing to do—indeed, the only thing to do—as a democrat is to accept the result of the referendum, to avoid prolonging this damaging uncertainty and to focus on arguing for what I think is the best relationship with the EU once we have left, both for my country and my constituents. For me, that means the closest possible relationship with the EU consistent with the referendum result, and it means a liberal, tolerant, outward-looking, internationalist Britain that leads the world in free trade, the rule of law, the fight against terrorism, international development,  research and innovation and environmental protection, all in close co-operation with our EU friends and allies. That was the positive vision set out by the Prime Minister in her Lancaster House speech, and she has my full support in seeking to deliver it, but she can do so only if we vote to trigger article 50 tomorrow—the inevitable and required result of the EU referendum.

Karen Buck: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this short debate on the impact of funding changes on London’s schools. I apologise to the Minister for his drawing the short straw of having to respond to a debate at midnight, although I suspect that this will be the first of many such debates.
London Members of Parliament have some grave concerns, although I know that other parts of the country are affected by changes to the funding formula and by the wider squeeze on schools funding. In my constituency—this experience will be replicated widely, particularly in London—the story of school progress over recent years has been one of the great public policy successes. In the mid-1990s, our school estate was crumbling. We were teaching children in badly ventilated, overheated and old-fashioned buildings that had not received investment for decades. I remember when North Westminster community school, which was a sprawling three-centred school, achieved in the last year before its closure just 18% GCSE grades A to C, including English and maths. It was one of the worst results in the country. I remember when half our secondary schools and a number of primary schools were in special measures, despite some frankly heroic efforts by a number of teachers and heads. I remember when there was virtually no provision at all for pre-school education.
Over the course of the past 15 years, the situation was transformed by a number of measures, including the London challenge programme—a focused management and good practice sharing policy that, under the inspirational leadership of Tim Brighouse, was widely understood to be a key factor in driving change in London schools. The transformation was also brought about by the new infrastructure, with magnificent new buildings across the city. It was brought about by the investment that went into the Sure Start children’s centres and the early years programme. Critically, it was brought about by money. The additional funding that went into London schools was used particularly to invest in teaching and improved teacher pay; in support for schemes such as Teach First; and in generally giving headteachers the ability to marshal resources to support a better learning environment. We have seen the outcome of that investment —both human and resource investment—in the hugely improved outcomes in school performance across the capital.
In the days before the London Challenge, London was the worst performing region in the country at key stage 4 level. By the end of that programme and the additional investment that accompanied it, we were the best performing region. Yet we know that the job is not done. Despite the improvements, there are still too many children who are not going into secondary school having achieved the standard at primary that is our benchmark. Across the country as a whole, we are still not managing to close the gap in attainment with some of our competitor nations. That is, as the last few hours of debate have confirmed, more of a challenge to rise to than it was previously. More than ever, the country as a  whole but London in particular require an education system that will allow us to be a world leader creatively, technically and economically, with an education system to support that.
The pressures and challenges that face London education are as great as ever. We have problems of deprivation that are still acute, and problems of churn. I appreciate very much that the Government have, for the first time, introduced a churn or pupil mobility indicator into the funding formula. I remember having an Adjournment on this very topic 10 years ago, when I wanted a factor of mobility to be brought into the funding formula for policing, for health and for education. I welcome the introduction of the indicator, but none the less schools face enormous pressure in some cases. I know of primary schools where not a single child at key stage 2 was there at the completion of the key stage 1 process. This is a very real difficulty for schools. We know of the challenges of English as an additional language and, critically, of the higher salary, building and other operating costs that London schools have to face. Even my borough of Westminster—the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), who was a Westminster councillor, will recognise this—despite its reputation as the glittering centre of the capital that people see with Oxford Street and, indeed, the Palace of Westminster and so forth, has the seventh highest child poverty in the whole country.